This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: With Reservations, Obama Signs Act to Allow Detention of Citizens

Originally Posted by whysoserious

I don't know if I am buying all of this nonsense, but it doesn't really matter since I am again detaining anyone indefinitely without trial.

Well, we do have to beg the question if there is a case to date where this has been implemented as those whom are afraid of the implication imply. That ofcourse is no guarantee that it wouldn't in the future, up to this point it hasn't been.

The thing that bothers me, is that for the past six years or so, I argued adamantly that Bush employed executive powers all begging the safety of the American people. Liberals often made the argument that the power I argued was necessary wouldn't stop at Bush's end of term. They were right if this is true.

See, the problem won't come in a fell swoop of power grab, but much more in the stench of incrementalism.

j-mac

Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.
Alexis de Tocqueville

Re: With Reservations, Obama Signs Act to Allow Detention of Citizens

Originally Posted by Thunder

so, when do you guys think the indefinite detention of American citizens will begin?

It has already begun, but since that is existing detention, new detention is incorporated into it because it cannot be shown to have specifically happened. There is therefore no explicit language that this post even exists in whatever multi-dimensional universe your synaptic functions may be occupying at this particular nanosecond.

Re: With Reservations, Obama Signs Act to Allow Detention of Citizens

Originally Posted by j-mac

Well, we do have to beg the question if there is a case to date where this has been implemented as those whom are afraid of the implication imply. That ofcourse is no guarantee that it wouldn't in the future, up to this point it hasn't been. [...]

It has already been implemented (with respect to American citizens), under the Bush administration (which is why this particular law provides no new authority).

The [U.S. Supreme] Court recognized the power of the government to detain enemy combatants, but ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the ability to challenge their enemy combatant status before an impartial judge.

Re: With Reservations, Obama Signs Act to Allow Detention of Citizens

Originally Posted by Neomalthusian

The final bill only says the REQUIREMENT of military detention does not apply to citizens/legal residents. It does not say that citizens are protected from the possibility of indefinite detention without trial.

The Military Commissions Act '09 defines "unprivileged enemy belligerent" broadly enough to include US citizens but then says persons subject to military commissions include "Any ALIEN unprivileged enemy belligerent" with alien meaning a person who is not a citizen of the US.

Oh, so they played word games with the issue, and now the door is open for future administrations to lock people up simply by labeling them with an invented phrase. "Unprivileged enemy belligerent" does have an interesting ring to it. I wonder just what it might mean? Could it apply to the OWS guys, to the tea party, to future protesters of yet another inadvisable war? The term seems broad enough to encompass any of the above and more.

"Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney